Archive for 2019

SPACE: After delays, SpaceX’s powerful Falcon Heavy lifts off in Florida. “Two side booster rockets flew back and landed at Cape Canaveral, creating sonic booms heard as far as Orlando. A third booster landed on a barge in the ocean, something SpaceX hadn’t accomplished with the previous Falcon Heavy launch. The boosters will be refueled and reused.”

THEY TOLD ME IF TRUMP WERE PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WOULD BE INDICTED FOR COLLUSION. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig charged by federal prosecutors over alleged Ukraine lies. “Gregory Craig, who was White House counsel under President Barack Obama, was indicted Thursday on charges of lying and hiding information related to his work for Ukraine. Craig, a 74-year-old lawyer based in Washington, D.C., was charged by the Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, unit. Craig faces up to five years in prison for each of the two counts. The charges stem from the federal investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election led by special counsel Robert Mueller, which came to a formal end last month.”

If they start enforcing the FARA, half of K Street will wind up in jail. Which would be a good start.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO, UH, WHATEVER THE HELL THIS IS: Ohio Woman with Alleged History of Dog Sex Is Now Accused of Robbing a Bank. “In a legal knot of canine proportions, a woman currently on probation for bestiality was charged with bank robbery on Monday in Ohio. According to local NBC affiliate WFMJ, 35-year-old Amber Finney was indicted by Trumbull County Grand Jury after allegedly knocking over a Chase Bank back in February.”

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND: Sudan’s military has toppled longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir. Bashir is now under arrest. Bashir seized power in a military coup in 1989. Despite his arrest the nation-wide protests against the government continue. Why? It’s a new military dictatorship, not a democratically elected civilian government.

The BBC makes this point in the linked report:

But demonstrators say the military council is part of the same regime.

The fresh stand-off has raised fears of a violent confrontation between protesters and the army.

There is also a real danger that different elements of the security forces and militia could turn their guns on each other, BBC World Service Africa editor Will Ross says.

StrategyPage published its latest Sudan update on April 5. (Full disclosure: I wrote 90 percent of it.) The update sketches events since December 19, 2018 when the demonstrations began. The update’s titled “Sudan Slides Towards Civil War.” Note the BBC says the security forces and government militias may start shooting at one another. That classifies as civil war.

From the April 5 StrategyPage update:

The protests began December 19, 2018. Initially, public anger at government reductions in food and fuel subsidies sparked the unrest but Sudan’s weak economy and president-for-life Bashir’s misrule (especially corruption) are the real sources of disgust. The economy has suffered considerably because of the loss of revenue from South Sudan’s oil fields (courtesy of South Sudan’s independence). Some protestors have focused on the Bashir’s huge spending on the military and security services while neglecting basic government services. President Bashir also faces indictments by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide in Darfur. Little wonder removing Bashir has become the demonstrators’ principal demand.

Note the March 13 entry regarding “the government’s harsh crackdown on street protestors, journalists and opposition political leaders.” (Scroll down.)

On February 22 Bashir “imposed a year-long state of national emergency. During the national emergency, public demonstrations are banned.” But the demonstrations continued. More people joined the protests. (See this March 11 update for details on the state of emergency and expanding protests.) On March 11 Bashir still retained the loyalty of the army. A month later that had changed.

This update has background on Bashir (February 1 entry):

He seized power in 1989 in a military coup and the military remains his base of power. Bashir continues to face arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in western Sudan (Darfur).

Bashir’s government hosted some of the world’s most notorious terrorists, Carlos “the Jackal” and Osama bin Laden among them. Abu Nidal also had a Khartoum address. Allegedly Lords Resistance Army commander and mass murderer Joseph Kony hides out in one of Sudan’s far corners.

On January 12 local observers believed the political opposition was “too fractured” to topple Bashir.

Stay tuned.

PEN v. TRUMP: All The President’s Riposte. In October of last year, left-leaning PEN America, a 501(c)(3) organization whose stated mission is “to ensure that people everywhere have the freedom to create literature, to convey information and ideas, to express their views, and to access the views, ideas, and literature of others” filed suit against President Trump, alleging that “The president’s conduct harms PEN America’s members by forcing them to do their work against the backdrop of credible threats of retaliation by the president.”

Late yesterday, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan filed a Motion to Dismiss the case, stating among other things that PEN does not have standing to bring the suit, and the only person alleged to have suffered harm was CNN’s Jim Acosta, but in fact Acosta voluntarily withdrew his suit against Trump after his White House credentials were reinstated. Of course, Acosta said the credentials were revoked as viewpoint discrimination because the president didn’t like his “reporting.” The White House responded (in not so many words) that his credentials were revoked for acting like a jerk in the Briefing Room.

The standing argument is pretty well-articulated, but fellow constitutionalists may wonder if the Complaint might be saved by the long-standing doctrine that a seemingly “moot” case may still be heard if it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498 (1911).

If I were a betting man, I’d wager that’s going to be PEN’s reply. Other than that, the Complaint seems to be little more than “Trump is a mean old meanie.”

IRONIC HYPERBOLE ALERT: PEN’s website states that:

“While many media outlets are unrelenting in their robust coverage, individual writers may think twice before publishing pieces or commentary that could put them in the White House’s crosshairs.”

I thought “crosshairs” was a dogwhistle for violence and was considered by our moral superiors to be an uncivil use of language. Or is PEN actually saying that teams of rooftop snipers are locked in on the entrances of America’s newsrooms? When Conservatives use that word: it’s a threat. When liberals use that word it’s “mere rhetoric.” 

ASKING THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: Did 19th Century Corsets Really Kill Women?

The practice prompted a public uproar, with doctors penning articles and books decrying corsets as a health “plague,” one on the same level as tobacco, gambling, strong drink, and illegal speculation, wrote Charles Dubois. Physicians blamed corsets for causing tuberculosis, cancer, liver disease, heart damage, and a host of other ailments.

These more frightening claims haven’t held up under modern scientific scrutiny, but a few concerns have. Tight corsets did make it slightly harder for wearers to breathe, an impediment which almost certainly led to a reduction in salubrious physical activity. Moreover, they caused muscles of the mid and lower back to atrophy, leading to chronic pain and weakness.

Still, Corsets did not destroy the health of women, nor did they condemn longtime wearers to early deaths. In fact, as Dr. Rebecca Gibson, a Visiting Assistant Professor in anthropology at the University of Notre Dame, discovered when analyzing collections of 18th and 19th century female skeletons, anatomical signs of corset use were actually linked to a longer lifespan.

I had no idea. But getting into — or in a rush, getting out of — one couldn’t have been any fun at all.